Voice of the people (letter).

Perjury Is Often Misunderstood

CHICAGO — Why are only some lies prosecuted as perjury? Everyone knows that perjury is a false statement under oath. But the other requirements for perjury are less well understood.

First, the false statement must be material, meaning it must frustrate the purpose of the lawsuit. Second, the purpose of the lawsuit must be one recognized as worthy or important by the office of the prosecuting attorney; otherwise, charges will not be brought.

These two requirements explain why police officers and informants are almost never prosecuted for perjury. For example, when a police officer falsely testifies that the defendant willingly confessed to the crime, and the defendant goes to prison, and we later learn that the defendant did not commit the crime and did not confess, the police officer is not prosecuted for perjury. His false statement did not frustrate the purpose of the lawsuit, which was to put the defendant in prison.

Similarly, when a paid informant working for federal drug agents falsely testifies that he bought drugs from the defendant, and we later learn that the informant lied to gain a reduced sentence in his own case, that informant is not prosecuted for perjury.

In other words, when you lie for the government in a criminal case, you will almost never face a perjury prosecution.

This brings us to President Clinton's false statement to Paula Jones' attorneys denying sex with Monica Lewinsky. Why do so many high officials believe this lie is perjury?

First, by denying an affair with Ms. Lewinsky, President Clinton frustrated the purpose of the Jones suit, which was to embarrass the president. (Those who believe the purpose of the Jones suit was to compensate Ms. Jones for damages suffered as a result of then-Gov. Clinton's alleged crude behavior in an Arkansas hotel room are mistaken. Ms. Jones did not suffer any damages; she did not lose her job or any promotions for her alleged refusal to have sex with Gov. Clinton. Rather, the lawsuit was brought and financed by Clinton's political enemies, in the name of Paula Jones, for the sole purpose of embarrassing the president.)

Second, the purpose of the Jones suit is one recognized as important by the office of the prosecuting attorney (here the Office of the Independent Counsel). Indeed, Ken Starr believed the lawsuit was so important that his law firm volunteered its services to help the Jones attorneys present their case to the United States Supreme Court and gain the right to sue the president. Mr. Starr aided the cause of the Jones suit when he permitted Linda Tripp to brief the Jones attorneys about Monica Lewinsky a few days before they took the president's deposition.